Website Advocating Tax Free Life and Claiming Federal Income Taxation Unconstitutional Ordered to Stop   - 2,720 Views, 1 Comment

Robert Schulz, the individual behind GiveMeLiberty.org, and the founder of both We The People for Constitutional Education and We The People Congress, has sworn to appeal the decision. The gist of Schulz’s beef is that the 16th Amendment, which grants to the government the power of taxation, was never properly ratified and is thus unconstitutional.

(While there had been many a tax act previously, including those imposing such diverse taxation as gasoline taxes and a marijuana tax act, in addition to an income tax, it is the 16th Amendment from which Congress modernly draws its broad power of taxation.)

You may recall from elementary school U.S. history class that it was the issue of taxation without representation that ultimately and famously led to the Boston tea party and, eventually, the American revolution.

Schulz’s claim is that the issue now is taxation without ratification.

The 16th Amendment states that “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

In its lawsuit against Schulz, the United States claimed that, through the Give Me Liberty website and We the People organizations, Schulz “causes harm to the Untied [sic] States by assisting customers to evade taxes and obstructing the IRS’s efforts to administer the federal tax laws.”

(Yes, the decision really does say the “Untied States” - we assume that it is an unfortunate error.)

The Court, not surprisingly, sided with the Feds.

“The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites imminent lawless action,” said Judge Thomas McAvoy.

After eviscerating the First Amendment in favour of the 16th, Judge McAvoy laid down his ruling, and issued the following injunction against Schulz, GiveMeLiberty.org, and We the People:

“Because Defendants have actually persuaded others, directly or indirectly, to violate the tax laws, Defendants words and actions were directed toward such persuasion, and the unlawful conduct was imminently likely to occur, the First Amendment does not afford protection. That being said, any injunction must be narrowly drawn to separate protected speech from unprotected speech and to protect Defendants’ First Amendment rights.

8. obstructing or advising or assisting anyone to obstruct IRS
examinations, collections, or other IRS proceedings.
b. Defendants shall, at their own expense, notify all persons who have
purchased or otherwise obtained their tax plans, arrangements, and
materials of this Memorandum, Decision and Order and provide them with
a copy of this Memorandum, Decision and Order;
c. Defendants shall produce to counsel for the United States a list identifying
by name, address, e-mail address, telephone number, and Social Security
number, all persons and entities who have been provided Defendants’ tax
preparation materials, forms, and other materials containing false
information and otherwise likely to cause others to violate the tax laws of
the United States;
d. Defendants, and anyone in active concert or participation with them, shall
remove from their websites and all other websites over which they have
control, all tax-fraud scheme promotional materials, false commercial
speech concerning the internal revenue laws, and speech likely to incite
others imminently to violate the internal revenue laws;
e. Defendants shall remove from its websites all abusive tax shelter
promotional materials, false commercial speech, and materials designed
to incite others to violate the law (including tax laws), and, for a period of
one year from the date of this Memorandum, Decision & Order, display
prominently on the first page of the website an attachment of this
Memorandum, Decision and Order;
f. Defendants shall immediately implement the terms of this injunction and
provide the Court with an affidavit of compliance within twenty-one days of
the date of this Decision and Order; and
g. This Court shall retain jurisdiction concerning Defendants’ compliance
with the injunctive relief.

—

What is interesting to consider here is a) how much of a tax loss has the United States actually suffered through Schulz’s actions, and b) how much is this lawsuit going to cost the United States - that is, U.S. taxpayers?

There is a bit of unpoetic irony in that taxpayer money is being used to defend the government’s right to that taxpayer money, against someone whose website is questioning the constitutionality of that ultimate tax act - the 16th Amendment - under which they are claiming that money in the first place.